CRIM 1

1. General Principles of Criminal Law

◦ Nature and Definition

• Criminal law is that branch or division of law which defines crimes,

treats of their nature, and provides for their punishment

• Crime is an act committed or omitted in violation of a public law

forbidding or commanding it.

• Sources: The R.P.C (Act No. 3815) and its amendments; Special
Penal Laws passed by the Philippine Commission, Phil. Assembly,
Phil. Legislature, National Assembly, the Congress of the
Philippines, and the Batasang Pambansa; Penal Presidential
Decrees issued during Martial Law

• Case: People v. Genosa, G.R. No. 135981, 29 September 2000,

341 SCRA 493

• Classical Theory: Basis of criminal liability is human free will. The

RPC is generally governed by this theory.

• Basic principle of criminal law is that a person is criminally liable for

a felony committed by him

• In this case, if Genosa has proof of insanity, it could have

exempted her from criminal liability. If she did not perform the act
voluntarily then she is not criminally liable
• The prosecution has likewise the right to fair trial, which includes
the opportunity to cross-examine the defense witnesses and to
refute the expert opinion given

2. Characteristics of Criminal Law

1. General

• Persons to whom criminal law shall apply

• The criminal law of the country governs all persons who live or
sojourn within the country regardless of their race, belief, sex, or
creed.

• Penal laws shall be applied to all persons on being within the

Philippine territory whether they are Filipino Citizens or foreigners
regardless of any of their personal circumstances.

• Applicable to all so long as within the Philippines

• Applies to non-citizens since while they are within the Philippines,

they are given protection in the same way that the government
protects its own citizen

2. Teritorial

• Place where penal law shall be applied

• Penal laws shall be applicable only within the

• Philippine jurisdiction including its atmosphere, internal waters, etc.

• The penal laws of the country have force and effect only within its
territory

• Art. 2, RPC Application of its provisions. - Except as provided in

the treaties and laws of preferential application, the provisions of
this Code shall be enforced not only within the Philippine
Archipelago, including its atmosphere, its interior waters and
maritime zone, but also outside of its jurisdiction, against those
who:

1. Should commit an offense while on a Philippine

ship or airship
2. Should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency
note of the Philippine Islands or obligations and
securities issued by the Government of the
Philippine Islands;
3. Should be liable for acts connected with the
introduction into these islands of the obligations
and securities mentioned in the presiding number;
4. While being public officers or employees,
should commit an offense in the exercise of their
functions; or
5. Should commit any of the crimes against
national security and the law of nations, defined in
Title One of Book Two of this Code.
• Case: People v. Tulin, G.R. No. 111709, 30 August 2001, 364
SCRA 10

• Hiong argues that the trial court erred in convicting and punishing
him as an accomplice when the acts allegedly committed by him
were done or executed outside of Philippine waters and territory,
stripping the Philippine courts of jurisdiction to hold him for trial, to
 convict, and sentence

• The disposition by the pirates of the vessel and its cargo is still
deemed part of the act of piracy, hence, the same need not be
committed in Philippine waters

3. Prospective

• Time when it shall apply

• A penal law cannot make an act punishable in a manner in which it

was not punishable when committed

• Acts or omissions classified as crimes will be scrutinized in

accordance with the relevant penal laws if these are committed
after the effectivity of those penal laws

• Art. 21, RPC. Penalties that may be imposed. - No felony shall be

punishable by any penalty not prescribed by law prior to its
commission.

• Art. 22, RPC. Retroactive effect of penal laws. - Penal Laws shall
have a retroactive effect insofar as they favor the persons guilty of
a felony, who is not a habitual criminal, as this term is defined in
Rule 5 of Article 62 of this Code, although at the time of the
publication of such laws a final sentence has been pronounced and
the convict is serving the same.

3. Sources of Criminal Law

 1. The Revised Penal Code (Act No. 3815) and its
amendments;

2. Special Penal Laws passed by the Philippine Commission,

Phil. pAssembly, Phil. Legislature, National Assembly, the
Congress of the Philippines, and the Batasang Pambansa;

3. Penal Presidential Decrees issued during Martial Law

4. Constitutional Limitations on Criminal Law

1. Due Process and Equal Protection

• Art. 3, Sec. 1, 1987 Constitution No person shall be deprived of

life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any
person be denied the equal protection of the laws.

• Case: White Light Corp v. City of Manila

2. Freedom of Expression

• Art. 3, Sec. 4, 1987 Constitution No law shall be passed

abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or
the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the
government for redress of grievances.

3. Freedom of Religion

• Art. 3, Sec. 5, 1987 Constitution No law shall be made respecting

an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession
 and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be
allowed. No religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil
or political rights.

• Case: Estrada v. Escritor

4. No excessive fines, nor cruel, degrading inhuman

punishment

• Art. 3, Sec. 19, 1987 Constitution

1. Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel, degrading or

inhuman punishment inflicted. Neither shall death penalty be
imposed, unless, for compelling reasons involving heinous crimes,
the Congress hereafter provides for it. Any death penalty already
imposed shall be reduced to reclusion perpetua.

2. The employment of physical, psychological, or degrading

punishment against any prisoner or detainee or the use of
substandard or inadequate penal facilities under subhuman
conditions shall be dealt with by law.

• Case: People v. Echagaray

• FACTS

• Leo Echagaray was charged and convicted of raping his 10 year

old daughter
• Ra 7659 (death penalty) was already in effect

• Echagaray invokes that he didnt kill his daughter

• Furman v georgia: death penalty is cruel and degrading

• Coker v georgia: rape deserves serious punishment but not death

• Anti death penalty task force - free legal assistance group RA 7659
unconstitutional because:

• Art 3 sec19, sec11 - severe & esxcessive penalty, cruel & unusual
punishment, respectively

• ISSUE

• Whether or not RA 7659 is unconstitutional

• HELD

• No

• Excessiveness is measured by

• Seriousness of crime, policy of legislative, perversity of accused

• Art3sec19 gives congress power to reimpose death penalty for

compelling reasons

• This consti exercise of rhis limited power entails that:

• Congress defines henious crimes, congress specify/penalize by
death only crimes that qualify, congress by enacting this bill is
motivated by comlelling reasons involving heinous crimes

• Provision doesnt say it needs to be valid/need to be last recourse

• Ra 7659 defines heinous crimes

• Grievous, odious - hateful by reason of inherent visciousness,

atrocity and perversity

• Repugnant/outrageous to common standards of decency/moralty

• Includes crimes which are despicable becaise life is callously

taken/victim is treated as an animal/dehumanized

• RULING

• Denied

5. Non-imprisonment for debt or non-payment of poll tax

• Art. 3, Sec. 19, 1987 Constitution

6. Bill of attainder

• Art. 3, Sec. 22, 1987 Constitution No ex post facto law or bill of

attainder shall be enacted.

• Case: People v. Ferrer

•

7. Ex-post facto laws

• Art. 3, Sec. 22, 1987 Constitution

• Case: US v. Conde

FACTS:
• May 6, 1921, a complaint was presented in the court of First
Instance of the city of Manila, defendants (Vicente Conde and
Apolinaria Conde) were charged with a violation of Usury Law (Act
No. 2655) (regulations governing the amount of interest that can be
charged on a loan)

• They were arrested, arraigned, and pleaded not guilty

• Lower court found the defendants guilty of the crime charged in the
complaint and sentenced each with a fine of P120, in case of
insolvency, to suffer subsidiary imprisonment in accordance with
the provisions of the law

• Lower court’s basis for criminal action: On Dec 30, 1915, offended
persons executed and delivered to the defendants a contract
evidencing the fact that the offended persons had borrowed money
- they obligated themselves to pay to the defendants interest (rate
5%) per month payable within the first 10 days of each and every
month, first payment to be made on Jan 10, 1916. Lower court
found them guilty because the defendants had collected a usurious
rate of interest after the adoption of the Usury Law

ISSUE:
• Defendants now appealed to this court (higher court) and now
contend: That the contract upon which the alleged usurious interest
was collected was executed before Act. No. 2655 was adopted;
that the contract was made (Dec 30, 1915) at the time there was
no Usury Law (May 1, 1916) in force in the Philippine Islands

RULING:
• The acts complained of in the present case were legal at the time
of their occurence, they cannot be made by any subsequent or ex
post facto law

• A law imposing a new penalty, or giving a new right of action, must

not be construed as having a retroactive effect.

• Every law that makes an action, done before the passage of the
law, which was innocent when done, criminal, and punishes such
action, is an ex post facto law.

• Ex post facto laws are prohibited unless its retroactive is favorable

to the defendant

• Higher court revoked lower court’s sentence, ordered and decreed

that the complaint be dismissed, and the defendants be discharged
from custody.

5. Construction and Interpretation

1. Literally in favour of the accused

• Penal laws are strictly construed against the Government and
liberally in favor of the accused.

2. Spanish text of the RPC prevails over the English text

• In the interpretation of the provisions of the RPC, the Spanish text

is controlling because it was approved by the Philippine Legislature
in its Spanish text

• Case: People v. Abilong

FACTS: September 17, 1947, In the City

of Manila
• The said accused convict sentenced and ordered of destierro

• During which he should not enter any place within the radius of 100
kilometer from the City of Manila.

• Issue: Whether the lower court erred in imposing a penalty on the

accused under Art. 157 of the Revised Penal Code which does not
cover evasion of service of “destierro”

• Ruling: It is clear that the word “imprisonment” in the English text is

erroneous translation of the phrase “sufriendo privacion de
libertad” used in Spanish text.

• Although the Solicitor General impliedly admits destierro as not

constituting imprisonment, It is a deprivation of liberty, though
partial, in the sense that as in the present case, the appellant by
his sentence of destierro was deprived of the liberty to enter the
City of Manila.
• Under the case of People vs. Samonte, as quoted in the brief of
the Solicitor General that “ It is clear that a person under sentence
of destierro is suffering deprivation of his liberty and escapes from
the restrictions of the penalty when he enters the prohibited area.”

• Conclusion: The appellant is GUILTY of evasion of service of

sentence under Art. 157 of the RPC (Spanish text), in that during
the period of his sentence of destierro by virtue of final judgment
wherein he was prohibited from entering the City of Manila, he
entered said City.

3. Retroactive application when favourable to the accused

4. Prescribed but undeserved penalties

• Art. 5, RPC Duty of the court in connection with acts which should
be repressed but which are not covered by the law, and in cases of
excessive penalties. - Whenever a court has knowledge of any act
which it may deem proper to repress and which is not punishable
by law, it shall render the proper decision, and shall report to the
Chief Executive, through the Department of Justice, the reasons
which induce the court to believe that said act should be made the
subject of legislation.

In the same way, the court shall submit to the

Chief Executive, through the Department of
Justice, such statement as may be deemed
proper, without suspending the execution of the
sentence, when a strict enforcement of the
provisions of this Code would result in the
imposition of a clearly excessive penalty, taking
 into consideration the degree of malice and the
injury caused by the offense.
• Case: People v. Formigones

FACTS:
• On December 28, 1946, Formigones stabbed his wife, Julia
Agricola, on her back using a bolo

• He then carried his wife to the living room and lay down beside her.

• This was how he was found by the people summoned by his eldest
daughter, who witnessed the stabbing.

• He pleaded guilty to the Court of the First Instance in Camarines

Sur citing jealousy as his motive for he believed his wife was being
intimate with his brother. He received the sentence of reclusion
perpetua and the Solicitor General filed for an appeal on the
grounds that he is an imbecile

ISSUE:
• If the nature or state of the defendant can lessen the gravity of his
punishment

• Par. 2, Rule 3, Art. 63 provides that when the commission of the

act is attended by some mitigating circumstance and there is no
aggravating circumstance, the lesser penalty shall apply

RULING:
• The appellant is guilty of parricide an we hereby affirm the
judgement of the lower court with the modification that the
appellant will be credited with one-half of any preventive
 imprisonment he has undergone. Believing that the appellant is
entitled to a lighter penalty, case should be brought to the attention
of the Chief Executive, in his discretion may reduce the penalty to
that next lower to reclusion perpetua to death

2. General Principles of Criminal Liability

◦ Felony - acts or omissions punishable by the RPC

▪ An Act or Omission

▪ Punishable by the RPC

▪ The act is performed or the omission incurred by means

of deceit or fault

• Art. 3, RPC Definitions. - Acts and omissions punishable by law

are felonies (delitos).

Felonies are committed not only be means of deceit

(dolo) but also by means of fault (culpa).
There is deceit when the act is performed with deliberate
intent and there is fault when the wrongful act results from
imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight, or lack of skill
◦ Elements of Criminal Liability

▪ Physical Element (Actus reus)

▪ Act - any bodily movement tending to produce

some effect in external world, it being
unnecessary that the same be actually produced,
 as the possibility of its production is sufficient

▪ Omission - the failure to perform a positive duty

which one is bound to do. There must be a law
requiring the doing or performance of an act.

• Case: People v. Sylvestre

Facts:
• Martin Atienza was convicted as principal by direct participation
and Romana Silvestre as accomplice of the crime of arson by the
Court of First Instance.

• On the night of November 25, 1930, Martin Atienza told Nicolas

and Antonia Dela Cruz to take their furniture out of the house
because he was going to set fire to it as revenge to the people of
Masocol, who instigated the charge of adultery against him and his
co-defendant Romana Silvestre.

• Martin Atienza was armed with a pistol when he announced his

intentions. He was accompanied by Romana Silvestre.

• The couple was alarmed and reported to the Barrio Lieutenant

what Martin Atienza plans to do

• A few moments after they left to report, they heard cries of “Fire!”
and saw their house in flames

• The fire destroyed about 48 houses

Issue:
• Whether or not Romana Silvestre is criminally liable and an
accomplice to the crime of her co-defendant?

Held:
No. Romana listened to her co-defendant’s
threat without raising protest, and did not
give alarm when the latter set fire to the
house.
• Mere passive presence at the scene of another’s crime, mere
silence and failure to give alarm, without evidence of agreement or
conspiracy, is not punishable

Ruling:
Romana Silvestre was acquitted.
Conclusion:
• It will be noted that in felonies by omission, there is a law requiring
a certain act to be performed and the person required to do the act
fails to perform it.

• Because there is no law that punishes a person who does not

report to the authorities the commission of a crime which he
witnessed, the omission to do so is not a felony.

• Case: People v. Talingdan

Facts:
• On June 24, 1967, Bernardo Bagabag was murdered in his house
by Talingdan, Tobias, Berras, Bides and his alleged wife, Teresa
Domogma (No certificate of proof of marriage can be presented)
• Bernardo had gotten wind that Teresa had an illicit relationship with
Nemesio Talingdan, a policeman

• On 2 different occasions, appellant Nemesis Talingdan has visited

Teresa in their house while Bernardo was out at work, and during
those visits Teresa had made Corazon, their then 12-year old
daughter to go down the house and leave them.

• The couple would have quarrels about the affair with Talingdan
and Teresa would leave the house after the fight for a number of
times

• 2 days before he was murdered, Bernardo had a violent quarrel

with Teresa. He slapped her several times and Teresa went out of
the house to seek the help of police

• The accused Talingden, a policeman, came armed to the house

and demanded Bernardo to come out. He was ignored and he left
the house but not before warning Bernardo that someday he would
kill him.

• On June 24, 1967, Bernardo was gunned down while having

supper in the dining area. Teresa was inside the bedroom when
the shooting happened. Corazon saw the incident and the culprits.

• Corazon was a key witness and testified that her mother was
meeting with Talingden and his fellow accused companions before
the murder of Bernardo.

• Teresa’s and Corazon’s accounts of what happened had variations

 Issue:
Whether or not Teresa Domogma an
accessory to Bernardo’s murder
• It is argued that there is no evidence proving that she actually
joined in the conspiracy to kill her husband because there is no
showing of actual cooperation on her part with co-appellants in
their culpable acts that led to his death.

Held:
Yes. She is an accessory to Bernardo's
murder.

Ruling:
• The court affirmed the decision held by the trial court with costs.
There are two aggravating circumstances present, treachery and
evident premeditation, with no mitigating circumstances to offset
the accused-appellants.

• Talingdan, Tobias, Berras, and Bides are guilty beyond reasonable

doubt of murder and are sentenced to DEATH to be executed in
accordance with law.

• Teresa Domogma is guilty as accessory to the same murder, and

is hereby sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of 5 years
prision correccional as minimum to 8 years of prision mayor as
maximum, with the accessory penalties of the law.

Conclusion:
• Note: The court believed Corazon's testimony.

• It is true that proof of her direct participation in the conspiracy is not

beyond reasonable doubt; she cannot have the same liability as
her co-appellants. She had no hand in the actual shooting. It is
also not clear if she helped directly in the planning and preparation
thereof. But the court is convinced that she knew it was going to be
done and did not object.

• There is in the record morally convincing proof that she is at the

very least an accessory to the offense committed.

• She did not only order her daughter not to reveal what she knew to
anyone, she also claimed to have no suspects in mind when the
peace officers came into their house later to investigate

• Whereas before the actual shooting she was more or less passive
in her attitude regarding the conspiracy, after Bernardo was killed,
she became active in her cooperation with her co-appellants

• These acts constitute "concealing or assisting in the escape of the

principal in the crime"

▪ Mental Element (Mens Rea)

• the intention or knowledge of wrongdoing that constitutes part of a
crime, as opposed to the action or conduct of the accused

▪ Deliberate Intent (Dolo)

1. Elements of Dolo

• Dolo / Dolus = Malice

• Act is Malicious

• Has intention to cause a wrong, or intent to do an injury to another

• Requisites of Malice

• He must have freedom while doing/omitting an act

• He must have intelligence

• He must have intent

2. General and specific intent

• A person who caused an injury by mere accident had freedom and

intelligence, but had no fault or intention of causing it, he is not
criminally liable

◦ Case: People v. Puno

Facts:
• January 13, 1988 in QC, at around 5:00 pm: the accused Isabelo
Puno, who is the personal driver of Mrs. Sarmiento's husband (who
was then away in Davao purportedly on account of local election
there) arrived at Mrs. Sarmiento's bakeshop in Araneta Ave, QC

• He told Mrs. Sarmiento that her own driver Fred had to go to

Pampanga on an emergency so Isabelo will temporarily take his
place

• When it was time for Mrs. Sarmiento to go home to Valle Verde in

Pasig, she got into her husband's Mercedes Benz with Isabelo
driving

• After the car turned right on a corner of Araneta Ave, it stopped

and a young man, accused Enrique Amurao, boarded the car
beside the driver

• Enrique pointed a gun at Mrs. Sarmiento as Isabelo told her that he

needs to "get money" from her

• Mrs. Sarmiento had P7,000 on her bag which she handed to the
accused

• But the accused said that they wanted P100,000 more

• The car sped off north towards the North superhighway where
Isabelo asked Mrs. Sarmiento to issue a check for P100,000

• Mrs. Sarmiento drafted 3 checks: two P30,000 checks and one

P40,000 check

• Isabelo then turned the car around towards Metro Manila; later, he
changed his mind and turned the car again towards Pampanga

• According to her, Mrs. Sarmiento jumped out of the car then,

crossed to the other side of the superhighway and was able to flag
down a fish vendor's van, her dress had blood because according
to her, she fell down on the ground and was injured when she
jumped out of the car

• The defense does not dispute the above narrative of the

complainant except that according to Isabelo, he stopped the car at
North Diversion and freely allowed Mrs. Sarmiento to step out of
the car

◦ He said he even slowed the car down as he drove away, until

he saw that his employer had gotten a ride

◦ He claimed that she fell down when she stubbed her toe
while running across the highway
 Issue:
1. Whether or not the accused can be convicted of kidnapping for
ransom as charged

2. Whether or not the said robbery can be classified as "highway

robbery" under PD No. 532 (Anti-Piracy and Anti-Highway Robbery
Law of 1974)

Held:
1. No

2. No

Ruling:
Accused-appellants
convicted of robbery (indeterminate
sentence of 4 years and 2 months
or prision correccional, as
minimum, to 10 years of prision
mayor. Accused to pay Mrs.
Sarmiento P7,000 as actual
damages and P20,000 as moral
damages.)

Conclusion:
1. There is no showing whatsoever that appellants had any
motive, nurtured prior to or at the time they committed the wrongful
acts against complainant, other than the extortion of money
from her under the compulsion of threats or intimidation.
• For this crime to exist, there must be indubitable proof that the
actual intent of the malefactors was to deprive the offended party
of her liberty

• In the case, the restraint of her freedom of action was merely an

incident in the commission of another offense primarily intended by
the offenders

• This does not constitute kidnapping or serious illegal detention

2. Jurisprudence reveals that during the

early part of the American occupation of
our country, roving bands were organized
for robbery and pillage and since the then
existing law against robbery was
inadequate to cope with such moving
bands of outlaws, the Brigandage Law was
passed (this is the origin of the law on
highway robbery)
• PD No. 532 punishes as highway robbery only acts of robbery
perpetrated by outlaws indiscriminately against any person or
persons on Philippine highways and not acts of robbery committed
against only a predetermined or particular victim

• The mere fact that the robbery was committed inside a car
which was casually operating on a highway does not make PD
 No 532 applicable to the case.

• This is not justified by the accused's intention.

3. Mistake of fact

• Ignorance or mistake of fact relieves the accused from criminal

liability

• Mistake of a fact is a misapprehension of fact on the part of the

person who caused injury to another

• An honest mistake of fact destroys the presumption of criminal

intent which arises upon the commission of a felonious act

• Requisites of mistake of fact as defense

• The act done would have been lawful had the facts been as the
accused believed them to be

• That the intention of the accused in performing act should be lawful

• That the mistake must be without fault or carelessness on the part

of the accused

◦ Case: US v. Ah Chong (p. 46 in Reyes book pdf)

• In this case, there is an innocent mistake of fact without any fault or

carelessness on the part of the accused, because, having no time
or opportunity to make any further inquiry, and being pressed by
 circumstances to act immediately, the accused had no alternative
but to take the facts as they then appeared to him, and such facts
justified his act of killing

• Facts:

• The defendant, Ah Chong, was employed as a cook at “Officers’

quarter, No. 27,” Mc Kinley, Rizal Province and at the same place,
Pascual Gualberto, deceased, was employed as a house boy.

• Officers’ quarter, No. 27 as a detached house situates some 40

meters from the nearest building.

• No one slept in the house except the two servants, who occupied a
small room, the door of which opened upon a narrow porch running
along the side of the building, by which communication was had
with the other part of the house.

• This porch was covered by a heavy growth of vines for its entire
length and height. The door of the room was not furnished with a
permanent bolt or lock and occupants as a measure of security
had attached a small hook or catch on the inside of the door and
by means of fastening the door by placing against it a chair.

• There was but one small window, aside from the door and window,
there were no other openings of any kind in the room.

• On the night of August 14, 1908 at about 10 o’clock., the defendant

was awakened by someone trying to force open the door of the
room. He sat up in bed and called out twice, “Who is there?” He
heard no answer and was convinced by the noise at the door that it
 was being pushed open by someone.

• Due to the heavy growth of vines along the front of the porch, the
room was very dark, and the defendant, fearing that the intruder
was a robber leaped to his feet and called out. ‘If you enter the
room, “I will kill you.”

• At that moment he was struck just above the knee by the edge of
the chair which had been placed against the door.

• In the light of after events, it is probable that the chair was merely
thrown back into the room by the sudden opening of the door
against which it rested.

• Seizing a kitchen knife which he kept under his pillow, the

defendant struck out wildly at the intruder who turned out was his
roommate, Pascual.

• Pascual ran out upon the porch and fell down on the steps in a
wounded condition, followed by the defendant who immediately
recognized him in the moonlight.

• The deceased and the accused who roomed together and who
appeared to have friendly and amicable terms, had an
understanding that when either returned at night, one should knock
at the door and acquaint his name.

• The defendant admitted that he had stabbed his roommate but

said that he did it under the impression that Pascual was a lardon.

• The defendant admitted that he killed his roommate, Pascual

Gualberto, but insisted that he struck the fatal blow without any
 intent to do a wrongful act, in the exercise of his lawful right of self-
defense.

• Pascual died from the effects of the wound on the following day.

• The defendant was charged with crime of assassination and found

guilt by the trial court of simple homicide and sentenced him to six
years and one day.

Issue: Whether or not Ah Chong is

liable of criminal offense against
Pascual Gualberto of committing
homicide

Ruling:
-He acted in good faith, without
malice, or criminal intent in the
belief that he was exercising his
right of self-defense.
-The facts been as he believed
them to be he would be exempt
from criminal liability on account of
his act; and he cannot be said to
have been guilty of negligence or
recklessness or even carelessness
in falling into his mistake as to the
facts.
-The defendant acquitted of the
crime with which he is charged,
and his bail bond exonerated, with
the costs of both instance de oficio.
 ◦ Case: People v. Oanis

• The accused found no circumstances whatever which would press

them to immediate action.

• They were at fault when they shot the victim in violation of the
instruction given to them and careless in not verifying first the
identity of the victim

• Even if the victim is the true notorious criminal, the accused would
not be justified in killing him

4. Malum prohibitum (wrong due to being

prohibited) as exception to the requirement
of mens rea

◦ Case: Padilla v. Dizon

◦ Case: Magno v. C.A.

• Petitioner, Oriel Magno, was lacking funds to buy equipment to put

up his car repair shop. Petitioner approached Corazon Teng, VP of
Mancor Industries (Mancor) , a distributor of his needed service
equipment. Magno informed Teng that he was lacking funds.

• Teng referred Magno to Joey Gomez of LS Finance and

Management Corporation and advised that Mancor is willing and
 able to provide for the needed equipment if the LS Finance could
accommodate Magno and provide him credit facilities.

• Agreement took place between Magno and LS Finance. 1)

Petitioner has to pay a warranty deposit of Php29,790.00. 2) LS
Finance would pay the corresponding rent with the option to buy
the same

• Since petitioner could not come up with that amount of warranty

deposit, he asked Joey Gomez to find a third party who could lend
him money. Unknown to the petitioner, it was Teng who advanced
the deposit on the condition that the same would be paid as a short
term-load with interest.

• Petitioner issued 6 postdated checks as payment for the loan. 2

checks were cleared, 4 were held as per petitioner’s request

• Petitioner could not pay LS Finance for its monthly rentals. LS

pulled out the garage equipments. This was when petitioner found
out that Teng made the deposit.

• Petitioner and his wife talked to Teng and promised to pay the
warranty deposit but the payment never came. When the 4 check
were deposited they were returned for the reason of “account
closed”

• After joint trial before the RTC of Quezon CIty, Branch 104,
petitioner was convicted for violations of Batasang Pambansa Blg.
22 (Anti Bouncing Checks Law) on four cases.
• Issues: Whether the petitioner is guilty of the BP Blg 22 - No

• Whether the post-dated checks were issued “to apply on account

or for value: as required by BP blg 22 – No

• *Mere act of issuing a bounced check is an offense violating BP blg

22. But, is Malum Prohibitum bec in cases of Malum Prohibitum,
the only question is whether or not the law has been violated and
proof of criminal intent is not necessary for the conviction of
accused.

• Appealed decision is reversed and the accused-petitioner is

acquitted of the crime charged.

◦ Case: Garcia v. C.A.

• Facts: In 1995, Aquilino Q. Pimentel, Jr., ran for senatorial

elections.

• In Alaminos, Pangasinan, Arsenia Garcia was one of the

designated election officers.

• Garcia was accused by Pimentel of violating the Electoral Reforms

Law of 1987.

• Pimentel alleged that Garcia decreased Pimentel’s vote by 5034

votes.
• The trial court found Garcia guilty. On appeal, Garcia invoked that
the trial court erred in ruling that her defense of good faith was not
properly appreciated.

• She claimed that due to the workload, she got fatigued and that
caused the error in the tabulation of Pimentel’s votes.

• Pimentel argued that the Electoral Reforms Law is a special law

hence it is a malum prohibitum law and therefore, good faith is not
a defense.

• Issue: Whether or not the alleged violation of Garcia of the

Electoral Reforms Law is a malum prohibitum.

• Held: No. Generally, mala in se crimes refer to those felonies in

violation of the RPC. However, mala in se are crimes which are
inherently immoral.

• Hence, even if the crime is punished by a special law, if it is

inherently immoral, then it is still a crime mala in se.

• Intentionally increasing or decreasing the number of votes received

by a candidate is inherently immoral, since it is done with malice
and intent to injure others.

• Conclusion: Therefore, Garcia’s defense of good faith was not

proven.

• It was shown that she willingly handled certain duties which are not
supposed to be hers to perform.
•

5. Intent distinguished from motive

• Motive is the moving power which impels one to action for a

definite result. Motive is not an essential element of crime (need
not be proved for purposes of conviction). Motive is essential only
when there is doubt as to the identity of the assailant

• Intent is the purpose to use a particular means to effect such result

▪ Constructive Intent (Culpa) Art.3 and 365

1. Elements

• Not Malicious

• Injury caused is unintentional, it being an incident of another act

performed without malice

• Wrongful act results from imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight

or lack of skill

2. Impudence or lack of skill

• Deficiency of action

3. Negligence or lack of foresight

• Deficiency of perception
 ◦ Case: People v. Pugay

Imprudence - deficiency of action/

fails to take necessary precation.
Lack of skill.
Negligence - deficiency of
perception/ fails to pay proper
attention. Lack of foresight.
Facts
• May 19, 1982, at the town plaza of the Municipality of Rosario,
Cavite.

• Pugay and Samson was drunk. Pugay took a can of gasoline

under the ferris wheel and poured it to Bayani Miranda. Then,
Samson set Miranda on fire making a human torch out of him.

• Eduardo Gabion witnessed this while sitting in the ferris wheel

while reading a comic book.

• The deceased was rushed to Grace Hospital.

• Gabion’s testimony was supported by Abelardo Reyes and Monico

Alimorong.

• Gabion’s uncle urged him to testify and not the mother of Samson.

Issues
• Is there a conspiracy present to ensure that murder can be a
crime? (No)
• What are the criminal responsibilities of the accused? (Guilty of
Imprudence resulting to homicide)

Ruling
• Guilty of Imprudence resulting to homicide

• Pugay must suffer from four months of arresto mayor to four and
two months of prision correccional

• Samson must suffer eight years of prision mayor to fourteen years

of reclusion temporal.

◦ Case: Ivler v. San Pedro

Facts
• Regional Trial Court of Pasig City

• On August 2004, petitioner Jason Ivler was charged with two

separate offenses: 1) Reckless Imprudence resulting in Slight
Injuries sustained by Evangeline Ponce 2) Reckless Imprudence
resulting in Homicide and Damage property for the death of
Ponce’s husband Nestor Ponce.

• On September 7, 2004, petitioner pleaded guilty

Issues
• Whether petitioner forfeited his standing to seek relief in S.C.A.
2803 when MeTC ordered his arrest following his non-appearance
at the arraignment in Criminal Case No. 82366

• If in negative, whether the petitioners constitutional rights against

Double Jeopardy Clause bars further proceedings in Criminal Case
 No. 82366.

Ruling
• Wherefore, we GRANT the petition. We REVERSE the orders
dated 2 February 2006 and 2 May 2006 of the Regional Trial Court
of Pasig City, Branch 157. We DISMISS the Information in Criminal
Case No. 82366 against petitioner Jason Ivler y Aguilar pending
with the Metropolitan Trial Court of Pasig City, Branch 71 on the
ground of double jeopardy.

• Note: In double jeopardy, only the most severe cases shall be

imposed.

▪ Transferred Intent

• Art. 4, par. 1 Criminal liability shall be incurred: 1. By any person

committing a felony (delito) although the wrongful act done be
different from that which he intended.

1. Aberratio ictus

◦ Case: People v. Guillen

• The accused admittedly had deliberate intentions on killing his

target (President Manuel Roxas) however was unsuccessful but
eventually led to the killing of another person and injuries to
several other people

• Means of supposed killing of the target was by throwing a grenade

• The act in effect is an example of Aberratio ictus; accidental harm
to a person;

2. Error in personae

◦ Case: People v. Sabalones

• FACTS:Together with Nelson Tiempo, who was at the wheel,

Rogelio Presores, Rogelio Oliveros and Junior Villoria, they drove
to the residence of Stephen Lim at Mansueto Compound, Bulacao,
Talisay, Cebu.

• Edwin Santos, Glenn Tiempo, Rey Bolo and Alfredo Nardo also
went riding in an owner type jeepney in order to get back as soon
the car of Mr. Lim was parked in his home.

• The two vehicles traveled in convoy with distance of 3 and 4

meters from each other. When they arrived at the gate of the
house of Mr. Lim sudden bursts of gunfire was fired at them.

• Edwin Santos looked at the direction of the gunfire and saw the
persons firing at them. He was able to identify Teodulo Alegarbes,
Rolusape Sabalones and Timoteo Beronga as the persons who
fired at the vehicle.

• ISSUE: Whether or not the case was a case of abberatio ictus

(mistake of blow).

• RULING: It must be stressed that the trial court relied on the

conceptof aberratio ictus to explain why the appellants staged the
ambush, not to prove that the appellants did in fact commit the
 crimes.

• The case is better characterized as error in personae or mistake in

the identity of the victims rather than aberratio ictus which means
mistake in the blow.

3. Praeter intentionem

◦ Case: People v. Albuquerque

◦ Facts

• Appellant a widower of 55 years of age, father of 9 living children.

• partial paralysis for some time walks dragging one leg and has lost
control of the movement of his right arm. unable to work since he
suffered the stroke paralysis.

• one of his daughters was Pilar. Pilar became acquainted and had
intimate relation later with the deceased Manuel Osma about end
of 1928. Pilar and the deceased culminated in Pilar’s giving birth to
a child.

• Appellant wrote letters, at times were hostile and threatening and

at other times entreating the deceased to legitimize his union with
Pilar by marrying her or at least support her and his child.

• The deceased never complied with his promise.

• He presented himself one day at the office where the deceased

worked and asked leave of the manager.
• They went both downstairs, the appellant inflicted a wound at the
base of the neck of the deceased, causing his death.

• He proposed to said deceased to marry his daughter, the latter

refused to do so, He whipped out his penknife.

• the deceased tried to seize him by the neck whereupon, the

weapon landed on the base of the neck of the deceased.

• Issue: Whether or not the appellant is guilty of homicide.

• Ruling: The appellant is guilt of homicide, whereof the pursuant to

the provision of Act No.4103, the appellant is hereby sentenced to
suffer the indeterminate penalty of from one year of prision
correccional to eight years and 1 day of prision mayor, affirming the
judgment appealed from in all other respects, with the costs.

▪ Concurrence

▪ Resulting harm

▪ Causation

• Case: Bataclan v. Medina

• Medina (owner of the bus where four passengers died) was held
responsible for the death of the passengers despite their dying
from the fire caused by both gas leakage and the torch carried by a
rescuer
• The proximate legal cause is that acting first and producing the
injury, either immediately or by setting other events in motion, all
constituting a natural and continuous chain of events, each having
close causal connection with its immediate predecessor, the final
event in the chain immediately affecting the injury as a natural and
probable result of the cause which first acted, under such
circumstances that the person responsible for the first event should
be have reasonable ground to expect at the moment of his act that
an injury to some person might probably result therefrom

• In this case, negligence of the of the agents of the carrier is the

cause of the incident instead of the rescuer bringing the torch
which lit the gas from the tank

◦ Impossible Crimes

• Art. 4, par. 2 Criminal liability shall be incurred: 2. By any person

performing an act which would be an offense against persons or
property, were it not for the inherent impossibility of its
accomplishment or an account of the employment of inadequate or
ineffectual means.

• Case: Intod v. CA

• FACTS: In Feb 4,1979, Sulpicio Intod together with 3 other men

went to Salvador Mandaya’s home. Thereafter, these men met with
Aniceto Damulagan. Aniceto told Mandaya that he wanted
Bernardina Palangpangan dead because of some land dispute. He
asked Mandaya to accompany the 4 men and threatened to kill
Mandaya if he did not go with them.
• Around 10:00 pm that day the men arrived at the house of
Bernardina all armed with firearms. Mandaya pointed out the
location of the Bernardina’s bedroom and these men fired at the
room. However, Bernardina was not in her home during that time
and instead her son-in-law together with his family we’re staying in
her room.

• Fortunately no one was hit by the bullets fired at the room. A

witness was able to identify the shooters. RTC convicted these
men of attempted murder. The Court of Appeals upheld the
decision of the lower court.

• ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner (Intod) is guilty of attempted

murder.

• RULING: No, petitioner is not guilty of attempted murder because

the act he committed was an impossible crime as defined by Art. 4
paragraphs 2 & 59 of the RPC.

• The act performed cannot produce an offense against the person

for it is inherently impossible of accomplishment or the means
employed are either inadequate or ineffectual.

• In order to qualify as an impossible act there must be either (1)

legal impossibility or (2) physical impossibility to accomplish the
intended act.

• Case: People v. Saladino

• Bartolo Saladino and Anastasia Alejo have appealed from 2 decisions of

the court of first instance of Ilocos Norte convicting them of the murder
 of Luis Bernabe.

• June 23, 1948

• Corporal Saladino and Private Alejo worked for the Philippine

Constabulary.

• They were on a patrol duty when Felix Pasion reported to them that he
had been robbed, one of the robbers was Luis Bernabe. Saladino and
Alejo found Bernabe.

• Saladino and Alejo tried to make Bernabe admit his wrongdoing. They
both physically abused Bernabe – through repeated severe beating,
whipping onto him a branch of tree, boxed and kicked him on different
parts of his body. Bernabe never confessed. Alejo and Bernabe
continuously maltreated him until Bernabe died.

• Saladino didn’t believe Bernabe’s death at first, not until an old man
confirmed it. He ordered Alejo to shoot Bernabe. And tell the authorities
that Bernabe ran away. Alejo complied.

• Saladino made up a story of how Bernabe died before the assistant fiscal.
But the other policemen (witnesses) told before a judge the truth. He is
the guilty of having cruelly tortured and treacherously caused the death of
Bernabe.

• *Impossible crime bec 1) act performed is against person, 2) act was done
with evil intent, 3) its accomplishment is impossible, 4) act performed
should not constitute a violation of another provision of RPC.
4 - Estrada v Escritor
5 - People v Echagaray
6 - Corpuz v People
7 - People v Ferrer
8 - US v Conde
9 - People v Abilong
10 - People v Formigones
11 - People v Sylvestre
12 - People v Talingdan
13 - People v Puno
14 - Us v Ah Chong
15 - People v Oanis
16 - Padilla v Dizon
17 - Magno v CA
18 - Garcia v CA
19 - People v Pugay
20 - Ivler San Pedro
21 - People v Guillen
22 - People v Sabalones
23 - People v Albuquerque
24 - Bataclan v Medina
25 - Intod v CA
26 - People v Saladino

Aiden Cases 5, 15, 16

Rex Cases 18, 9
Ej Cases 13, 12
Vahl Cases 10, 8
Christine Cases 17, 26
Josh Cases 21. 24
Blas Cases 20, 19
Enyong Cases 14, 23
Brad Cases 11, 22, 25
Janette 4, 6, 7